Thursday, June 15, 2017

MJ-12 - New Documents, Old Story

(Blogger's Note: Normally I would take more time to edit this, but there is pressure to get something posted. This is my opinion based on what I have seen, read, and researched since I was alerted to the documents at 4:18 p.m. CDT on June 14. Excuse the typos...)

The field where Mack Brazel is alleged to have found the
metallic debris. Photo copyright by Kevin
Randle.

Okay,
I’ve had time to review the document carefully, or rather given it a solid
first reading and I have some points to make. I will note here that in my talks
with Stephen Bassett, he suggested that all of us, meaning Stan Friedman,
Richard Dolan, him and me, create a list of what our first impressions are, and
the things that we spotted right off the top. I thought that idea had some
merit. We’re not looking to authenticate or debunk, only at the things that
disturbed us in some fashion.

I
did ask Heather Wade about the source, or sources, and she didn’t give me
names, only that they were ex-military and had possessed the documents for a
very long time. She didn’t know which government agency had originated them,

Richard Dolan. Copyright byKevin Randle

and there seemed no way to verify them through government sources. We also seem
to suffer from the same problems that we’ve always had and that is that we’re
working from copies and not originals. This makes the whole process problematic…
and I think we can point to many cases in which copies of documents have turned
out to be forgeries (think CBS and George W. Bush’s military records and any
number of MJ-12 documents).

The
classification markings on the documents do not seem to be consistent with
authenticity, that is, the classification is not marked at both the top and the
bottom of the document.

The
dating format, 07 July, 1947, is not one that was in use in 1947, but I suppose
you could argue that this format is consistent with the other MJ-12 documents
even if it is more consistent with a dating format used by Bill Moore.

The
use of “Ultra Top Secret” also raises questions. Ultra was the British code
name for their operation to intercept and read high-level, highly-classified
Nazi message traffic. This code name seems inappropriate for use by the US
government or military. In keeping with that, there are several mentions that
these documents are classified “Above Top Secret,” but that is really a misnomer…
Top Secret is the highest classification, but the number of people allowed to
review certain documents can be further restricted by adding a code word. Only
those who are code word cleared would have access to the document and by adding
a second code word you restrict the numbers even further. So, if there are two
code words, you have a document that can be said to be two points above top
secret, though that is not actually a fact. While we can argue the semantics of
this, I don’t believe someone on the inside would talk of a document being
classified two points above top secret, but rather suggesting it was double
code word protected.

Jesse Marcel, Sr.

The
description of the Roswell case, and the chronology is not accurate based on
all the documented evidence available. As but a single example, the document
tells us that Mack Brazel alerted the authorities at Roswell Army Air Forces
base (which is not the correct name of the facility) at “05:18” (which should
have been written as 0518 hrs) though it is clear that it was the sheriff who
alerted the Army and Major Marcel himself said that he learned about it as he
was eating lunch.

One
of the major red flags is, “At his arrival in Roswell, General Twining relieved
Colonel Blanchard of command…” There is no evidence of any such order. The
relief of a commanding officer is a major event. Had Twining arrived in Roswell
and assumed command by virtue of being the senior officer present, that is not
the same thing.

I’m
going to leave the Roswell segment here, though I see many other problems, and
move onto the “Aztec UFO Crash,” which is featured more prominently (which
means I’m not even going to discuss the fraudulent IPU). As I was reading this,
I thought the same thing that one of the commenters made on the previous post,
that is, I was reminded of William Steinman’s nonsensical book, UFO Crash at Aztec. If we compare this
to Scott Ramey’s book, The Aztec Incident,
the chronology here is all wrong. If we accept Ramey’s book as accurate, then
the document fails (which is sort of a point in another arena).

In
this document, they have changed the times which had been Mountain Standard Time,
to what they call Local Time or LT. If this was strictly a military document, I
would have expected the times to be converted to Greenwich Mean Time or Zulu
Time. Not really a fatal flaw but one that seems to be out of place.

I’m
now going to skip all the trouble with the Aztec aspect of this simply because
there is so much that is simply wrong. And if this is a real briefing, where is
the mention of Del Rio, Plains of San Agustin and Kingman? They mention other crashes but provide no detail, probably because these details would be difficult to find and easy to refute.

Anyway,
we are now treated to the transcript between an EBE and an assortment of
interviewers who are never named for a reason that I can’t fathom (unless, of
course, they don’t exist). At first glance, I was drawn to the comment about
why the aliens had coming to Earth for centuries and learned, “And we like
trees?” I wondered if this was the same group of aliens that liked strawberry
ice cream and Tibetan music.

I
did mention this to Stephen Bassett who wondered if someone had gone to all the
trouble to fake the documents, all the study that it had taken and the time to
create it, if he or she would then sabotage the effort with some ridiculous,
off the wall comment about liking trees.

My
first reaction was to think that was an interesting point, but I had yet to
carefully read the document. Having now done so, I see that there really is
nothing new here. The information about Roswell is wrong, the name of the base
is wrong, the chain of command is wrong, and even the higher headquarters at
Fort Worth is wrong (it wasn’t the 5th Air Force, but the 8th).

Stan Friedman. Copyright byKevin Randle

The
Aztec material is derivative of Steinman’s book, the MJ-12 information is taken
from there (or maybe from any of Stan Friedman’s many writings on it), and
there is nothing that is suggestive of advanced scholarship. The writing does
not sound as if it came from a government source, and without names, without
government agencies, without any way to check things out, this just doesn’t
seem to be authentic. I withheld my opinion on this, just announcing that the documents have been released so
others would have a chance to review them, but it is now clear that
this does nothing to further our knowledge and just confuses an already
confused issue.

40 comments:

After reading them, there is nothing about the documents that would make me change my mind about Roswell, Aztec, or MJ-12. But I liked that the alleged interview with an Alien survivor from Aztec said that they were visiting because they liked trees. I agreed.

Most of it reads like someone was having fun. So the only questions are who and why.

After further thought, there is an additional question or two. How long will it take before certain segments of ufology hail them as the greatest thing since ... at least since the Slides? And how long will they be discussed?

I wonder if - because it's so very close to the 70th anniversary now - someone has done this as a joke, and when people start to state they are authentic, then the creator will pull the plug on the joke and there will be a lot of red faces.

The thing is, when you begin to look at them in detail, you realize that there wasn't much effort put into these. Use the Internet, pull up some information and cut and paste it into a document that suggests that it is inside information. Then we get something that is as transparent as this...

I will note apropos of nothing at all, the old prospector adage, "You have to look." Doesn't mean you'll find the gold but you have to look just in case you're wrong.

I am very open minded,but think that if you use logic, certain things should stand out for people right out of the gate. Sometimes they are small things, but in your face. An example, when referring to a particular case, in a serious government or Intelligence based document, it would read something more like: case number X7L000765p, near Aztec, New Mexico. Or, case number 625XL, occurred 73 no NW of Roswell, NM. Instead it reads like titles from a book someone read. Different codes would note laid out. Again, like a book.

Kevin, here is a question for you. First I agree with your comments about the new batch of MJ-12's. The question is, if this was real, what would likely have been in the documents? I am thinking there would have been some details about the crafts themselves. Maybe more about the research into propulsion for example. It's that questions and answers not ask that most would think would be in the real documents but are not there. This is reason why I don't think they are real.

Looking at the new MJ-12 document the form used on page 2 is a DD form 1473 - Report Documentation Page. The active form to be used then is from 1986, so if the MJ-12 document was written in '89, one would expect that the '86 revision was used. But it's the '73 form in the MJ-12 document.

I don't think it is very likely that DIA would use a 16 year old form - there are also newer revisions of DD 1473 from '83 and '84 between the '73 and the '86. DoD, which DIA is a part of, are the ones responsible for the DD forms, so it's a bit strange if they didn't use the correct forms themselves.

But with all the other UFO-historical and document technical errors you pointed out, this document is a forgery anyway.

There's a portion of this dumb thing in which someone is described as being about to say something but is interrupted. How would the writer of a factual account (as opposed to a fan fiction hack) know what someone was ABOUT to say?

Just to clarify what I meant by; "it's a bit strange if they didn't use the correct forms themselves".

If the 'author table' in the form (Page 2) is classified (redacted), how - if this was real - could it be determined that the author was from a section within the DIA itself?

If you look at the requirements for the DD Form 1473 in MIL-STD-847(Revision) it states that the user of the form - author - can include a cover sheet (Page 1) before the form sheet, and on the cover sheet it states that it is a DIA Security Cover Sheet.

This is of course just mistake made by the hoaxter, as he or she probably didn't know that. It was most likely included for effect - ULTRA TOP SECRET sounds really cool.

Another logical error is why the author - user of the form - is redacted at all. It is a Top Secret document, which haven't been downgraded or had its clearence code changed.

You've done a nice job of laying out the problems with the document. I focused exclusively on standard language/tone and format of TS documents, even from the proposed time frame. As a holder of a TS/SCI clearance since 1988, I can say, without any reservation, these are absolutely fake.

While I don't know who faked those new MJ12 documents, there's not a chance this is disinformation by a government agency.

This is probably the work of someone in Ufology, who is just waiting for certain UFO researchers to endorse the documents - and then the hoaxer will come forward and explain how and why he did it.

Most hoaxers never admit to having hoaxed. But, I wouldn't be surprised if they suggested that what they did was not a hoax but a social experiment - revolving around gullibility and a yearning for the "proof" of Roswell.

With the 70th anniversary of the Roswell crash being just around the corner, this is perfect timing for someone to try and fool Ufology. And with the "I want to believe" factor so strong in Ufology, it will probably work.

I am looking forward to seeing certain ufological fence-sitters who will 100 percent refuse to denounce the documents as bullshit.

Why won't they denounce them? Because they fear they won't get booked at next year's conference here, or conference there, and are fearful of not being in with the "in-crowd" of Ufology anymore. Pathetic!! To those people, I say grow some balls and say what these "documents" are - total crap!

Glad to see this drivel is being treated with the contempt it deserves. It's a shame the site that put this obvious nonsense out will have got quite a few hits out of this (including from me...agree that you do have to look). Hopefully this can be assigned to the trash can now.

With documents such as this I suspect a fishing exercise, whereby people on the other side - who may be as perplexed as we are - put information out to see if the internet can come up with answers through pooled intelligence. The documents must be poorly written and obviously fake, or disclosure would actually occur which is not the intent. So you write something bad, with a problem in it, and watch the discussions. Then you go back to your work. I think I said elsewhere I am an optimist, but this is how I see it.

On the other hand the document - yes the kooky alien interview bit - refers to a 22 year delay in responding to a message sent. It is almost 22 years since the alien autopsy hoax. We should not call this badly written. It seems *carefully* written to *look* bad. Why? The signature of a hoaxer, or something more interesting?

Hope Stanton Friedman does not fall victim to this tripe. For once all of the posters here are in agreement on a UFO related subject. Maybe the originator of the documents had meant for them to come out on April 1. At least then it would make sense.

Perhaps I should add that I have had some experience of the ET phenomenon myself. I have found it very difficult - or impossible - to translate these experiences into ordinary statements of fact, so I appreciate it may require fiction to do so, and rubbish fiction at that, even - or especially - from the real experts who are probably not writers by profession. A hoax makes fun of this dilemma. Disinfo participates in it.

Well, I would say that outing a hoaxer - and trying to figure their motivations - is constructive, in terms of trying to bring them to an end quickly, rather than lasting for years. We can learn a lot from why people hoax and hopefully recognize them when they happen the next time.

Nick: that may be true about hoaxes, but I fear you are being too rational. Disclosure is the technocratic way of putting "revelation"; we all expect to go down the road of reason and get a pay-off at the end, a cosmic welcome that is technological. But revelation requires literature. The Bible does not say baldly a = b therefore x. It utilizes poetry and life. The life reveals at the level of subtext a = b therefore x. What truth value does a life have? We are asking the wrong questions. I would ask why is the hoaxer subconsciously picking on this field? And writing a discourse on missed signals?

I side with Redfern that this is connected to the 70th anniversary. I would even wager that this is really just a cheesy PR stunt to backhandedly promote 70th anniversary activities in Roswell. It's likely meant to get the believers who weren't sure about attending to decide to do so so they can get the "inside" scoop and spread their own unfounded speculations.

A hoax in the traditional sense - no. Government disinformation - no. A way to help drum up business for the 70th anniversary celebration - yes.

I am uncertain. In any case it is an interesting read that, if real, clarifies the relationship between abuctions and goverment treatment of the whole thing. The document is large, devil is in details.

It's hoax. It's a bad hoax. It is filled with incorrect information. The author couldn't even get the names of the base right, or put them in the right states. And remember, the aliens, "LIKE THE TREES!!"

I guess you could say they might have meant to say by RADAR, when it says, "Advanced beings of non-human nature are continuously being detected along with their flying-disc craft in the controlled space of the U. S. since 07 July 1947"

I wonder if they meant they are seen walking beside their flying disc craft, or running beneath it, or something like that.

But it should have also said "Zone of the Interior" not "...controlled space of the U.S."

Kevin, a couple of things I noticed.Interesting documents, but there could be some obvious initial problems with them.

Digger. Fictional call sign of an abandoned old airbase from a 1974 UFO movie The Disappearence of Flight 412. The movie was great, and based upon a real incident that happened in the early 50s.

Flat Rock Nevada. Fictional location of US Dept Ag research station. Below the research station was a bio lab where the fictional Andromeda Strain happen.

While there is no Flat Rock Nevada, a person pointed out an area NE of Searchlight Nevada that has some interesting structures. Look within 2 miles of that point, especially the big white building and the roads out to what appear to be sand piles. 35°31'6.47"N 114°53'28.15"WIt was said to not to disturb the locals or go on private property if you take a research trip out that way.

"BREAKING NEWS: This story just keeps getting bigger and bigger, you will hear things tonight that will scare you! Stanton Friedman as well as Whitley Strieber will both have mind blowing news on the NEW MJ12 documents. Listen FREE at 9PM P.T. "

Given that some think this document might be legit, the critique must continue.

No mention in any detail of ADC history, such as the RADAR Fence plan, or the creation of CONAC, which would have to be included in the type of background history provided by this document.

General Marshall did not cancel the 24 Hour Alert on the evening of the 25th. In fact, the Air Alet, issued by General Spaatz, not Marshall, beginning on the 25th, with a follow-up teleconference on the 26th, continued until early April.

I expect the 'story' will get an airing at the Roswell 'festival', where a few will regard it as the greatest news since sliced bread but the majority will realise it for what it is and hope it dies a quick death.

And the sequel? Silence for a year or so (with luck) and then another revival of it, either in the form of new documents, or as another autopsy film or a new set of color slides. Ha!

And if all else fails there is always that scrap of paper known as the 'Ramey memo' hovering in the background, ready to break into the news, again. Roswell will NEVER die!

Is anyone keeping score of how many hoaxes have centered on the Roswell story?I suppose it'd be tough accounting trying to decide if each MJ-12 document should be entered separately, and you'd also run into a lot of gray areas where it's uncertain if you were dealing with mistakes or genuine deception.

Because we know for a certainty thet General Spaatz ordered what Air Defense units we had, at the time, to immediately go on 24-hour alert, beginning on the 25th (reason given Russian agression in the East), with a teleconference on the 26th, we can utilize this information to once-and-for-all prove these documents as a hoax. This is especially true since it is also known, in air defense history, that the alert lasted until early April.

Since the author of the documents in question wrote that Marshall called the alert, and then cancelled it on the same day, it proves that whoever wrote this definitely used Steinman's book as a template.

No need for anything else, this absolutely proves hoax, and from where the information was derived.

It's a hoax. But I'd still be interested in the hoaxsters identity and motivation.

In the unlikely case that it's disinfo, again, what's the motivation? The folks who write -real- reports of this nature eat, sleep and breath this stuff everyday. There's no way they would make mistakes; they'd be booted out on their asses. So why would they deliberately put out crap? What would this accomplish?

It also fails as a promotional stunt. Ask the folks who flocked to see the 'Egress' at Barnums shows. Folks don't like to be hoodwinked.

I have to agree with the sentiments shared by the others above. This is a hoax most certain given that we know there is no MJ12. The previous documents were proven fake, thus these are clearly fake.

Is it possible these new documents were part of the old batch, or "leftovers" that were never used because of the obvious errors? If so, the authors are the original culprits we know already.

If not, then I agree with others that the source is someone in the UFO community who hopes to counter the massively deteriorating interest in Roswell, and UFOs in general, given the slides fiasco, MUFON debacle, and recently published books by respected authors on the fact most cases have failed to produce the evidence necessary to prove ET has crashed.

Just in time for the 70th anniversary of Roswell too, and obviously a cash grab effort for the numerous people who benefit from that event.

Just amazing that Friedman appears to support them, but what did we expect anyway??